Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au
Canada, Volume 3, number/numéro 3 (Winter/hiver
1996-7)
Great Expectations? 1
L'Internet a permis aux gouvernements fédéral et
provincial d'offrir une plus grande disponibilité de l'information
publique qu'ils fournissent mais il n'en est pas de même pour les
gouvernements municipals. Avec son accessibilité et sa franchise, la
nature du gouvernement local est telle que l'Internet ne fait que
compléter le moyen traditionnel de diffusion de l'information. Le
gouvernement local doit innover et encourager la
délibération des questions publiques par
l'intermédiaire de l'Internet pour améliorer la
délibération des questions publiques au niveau local et
l'utilisation anticipée de l'Internet au prochain niveau.
The buzz of high technology is everywhere. The Internet, in particular,
is seen as a major catalyst of change in the way we live. It affects
the way we run our business, communicate with each other, educate
our children and interact with our government. The list is so
extensive that it is almost futile to attempt to determine the
general impact of the Internet on our society. We can, however,
examine specific examples of how the Internet has changed our
lives, discuss some of the key issues and draw out some implications
of the change.
Towards that end this essay will examine how our municipalities
are utilizing the Internet to improve the "openness"
of local government and to increase participation with constituents.
I will begin with an overview of the nature of local government
and then consider why many municipalities have moved to develop
a presence on the Internet. I will then define some of the common
characteristics of municipal Web sites across Canada. Finally,
I will address a key question: "What impact, if any, will
the use of the Internet have on the interaction between local
governments and their constituents?" Openness and public
consultation have been prevalent characteristics of local governments
and the use of the Internet reinforces those traits. However,
I conclude that certain factors have limited the extent to which
the Internet has been used to promote and enhance deliberation
between constituents and their local governments.
The Nature of Municipal Government
Municipal government in what is now Canada actually preceded our
current federal and provincial governments. In British North America,
townships and villages were established to deal with a variety
of matters such as roads and security. Their functions were far
fewer in number than they are today. Nonetheless, these local
governments were much more accessible than the Parliament in London.
Today, local governments continue to be more accessible to most
people than their provincial or federal governments. Residents
of the Ottawa-Carleton region have considerably more access to
the federal government than residents of Sudbury or Thunder Bay.
Residents in all three regions can, however, access their local
governments with relatively the same amount of work.
Geographic proximity is not the only thing that makes municipal
government more accessible. The nature of the mandate of municipal
governments also forces them to be much more "open"
than the provincial or federal government. Municipal governments
deal with services that directly affect the average citizen. For
example, most municipalities are responsible for road maintenance,
police and fire protection, and sewage treatment. The federal
government deals with more distant issues such as international
trade, defence, human resource development, fisheries and oceans.
These issues (in most cases) do not affect all citizens every
day.
Since municipal governments deal with services that affect residents
on a daily basis, residents demand access to their municipal officials
when problems or needs arise. For example, if a street light burns
out, a resident would telephone the municipality with an expectation
that it would be fixed as soon as possible. If that same citizen
telephones the Minister of Finance to discuss reform, she might
not expect the same turn-around time.
Municipalities have adopted a number of procedures to assure the
public of their accessibility and openess. First, most municipal
council meetings are open to the public. Most provinces allow
for only certain instances when councils can meet in private.
In addition, most municipalities host a number of planning and
community-related open houses or workshops every year. When compared
to other levels of government, municipalities work harder to allow
the public input into local decision-making.
Another method of ensuring municipal governments are accessible
and approachable is through the provision of information. Many
municipalities have policies that require that the agendas of
meetings be finalized and published with sufficient time for public
notification. At the municipality I work for, it is mandatory
that agendas be made public at least one week before a meeting.
Furthermore, many municipalities make copies of meeting agendas
available in a variety of venues such as community centres, libraries
and fire halls. My municipality also utilizes a voice messaging
system through which residents can retrieve information on agenda
items and committee meeting dates. Most listings also provide
information on how to reach the staff person involved in an issue.
Suprisingly, given the various methods of ensuring the public
has access to municipal governments, residents remain relatively
uninvolved in local government issues. For the most part local
council meetings go unattended, open houses have more staff attendees
than members of the public, few people comment on municipal policies
or actions, and voter turn-out in municipal elections is generally
well below 50%. Why is public participation so low? Whatever the
answer, many municipalities have looked to new ways to disseminate
information to the public and provide even greater opportunity
for comment and participation. The Internet is one of those ways.
The Use Of The Internet By Local Government
What might be some of the specific factors motivating municipal
government to use of the Internet? The first motivating factor
is the need to better accommodate residents in a changing society.
Women are working in far greater numbers, many jobs required work
outside a 9-to-5 workday and part-time work is much more common.
As a result, fewer and fewer people have the time to travel to
City Hall to meet with a staff person, attend a council meeting,
or telephone their councillor during regular office hours. The
Internet provides residents with more flexibility as to when they
can retrieve information. Similarly, it provides a quick means
to voice a concern with a councillor or to obtain a registration
form for a particular program. Much like voice mail revolutionized
offices in the 1980s, the use of the Internet provides more flexible
access for residents.
A second reason for municipalities increasing their presence on
the Internet is the growth of metropolitan areas. Reforms in most
provinces to consolidate local government units, in addition to
increasing urbanization, has resulted in more populous municipal
governments of a larger geographic size. Thus, as with the federal
and provincial governments, municipalities are being forced to
find alternate places to disseminate information to residents, beyond
traditional venues such as local libraries or City Hall. The regional
government in my area is a perfect example. One of the biggest
advantages of the regional government Web page is that residents
in distant rural areas can view the agendas of a regional committee
without making the one-hour drive to the regional hall.
Cost is the third reason for municipalities, as with other levels
of government, to develop Internet sites. As municipalities take
on more responsibilities handed down from senior levels of government,
there is a need to provide a wider range of information to residents.
Publishing information in paper form is an expensive undertaking.
Use of the Internet allows municipal governments to provide detailed
information in a paperless environment at a reduced cost.
A fourth factor driving municipalities to get online is the desire
to promote public participation at the municipal level. Voters
in Canada have traditionally paid very little attention to municipal
elections or operations. The approximate turn-out in the last
municipal election in my municipality was 35% of eligible electors.
Furthermore, many of our council and committee meetings go unattended.
However, residents do take notice after a municipality
has done something unpopular no matter how great the opportunity
to comment during the decision-making process. Through the Internet,
municipalities have endeavoured to make residents aware of current
issues and provide them with the information they need to participate
constructively in the traditional decision-making process. The
next section will examine the ways in which many municipal Web sites
are structures to achieve this goal.
Characteristics of Municipal Web Pages
In evaluating municipal Web sites, I have found a number of recurring
characteristics. Most of the Web sites I visited divide information
into political, administrative, and community components. The
political components provide biographic information on elected
representatives, list committee memberships and organizational
structures, and often contain agendas and minutes of committee
meetings. For the most part these portions of the sites are well
developed. Many elected municipal officials have endeavoured to
provide substantial amounts of information on their pages in order
to keep their constituents informed.
The administrative components provide information pertaining to
departments and services. While most sites provide quick and easy
access to department officials, there seems to be a reluctance
to expand on information relating to the specific department.
For example, one site provides a number to contact if a person
wishes to apply for a building permit. However, no information
is provided as to when you need a building permit or the cost
involved.
The final components, for lack of a better classification, are
the community-related components. Many of the Web sites provide
links to various quasi- and non-governmental agencies and groups
that serve the community. Furthermore, some sites provide information
on community associations in different neighbourhoods.
The second recurring characteristic is an emphasis on economic
development. As municipal governments are dependent on business
and property taxes for revenue, they have a keen interest in economic
development. Given the push towards high-tech industries, it would
appear that many municipal governments have moved online in order
to market themselves better. My municipality, for example, notes
one of its major corporate residents on the front page of its
Web site. The Web site of a neighbouring municipality declares
that the municipality is "Where Businesses and Families Prosper."
The final recurring characteristic of many municipal Web sites
is the consistent failure of municipalities to allow for online
discussion amongst residents. Given that municipal governments
have typically encouraged public participation, this characteristic
must be examined closely.
The Failure of Municipal Government To Facilitate Online Discussion
Monica Gattinger maintains that there are three types of interaction
local government can undertake through the use of the Internet.
First, "broadcasting" involves local government disseminating
information to citizens but does not provide the opportunity for
direct public participation in policy formation. Second, "bilateral
communication" occurs when citizens inquire or comment on
issues and staff or politicians issue a response. There is no
structured debate and no formal influence on policy. Third, "multi-directional
communication" is communication between municipal governments
and residents, and among citizens themselves on significant municipal
issues.3
In my opinion, multi-directional communication is the most attractive
use of the Internet. Facilitating and increasing discussion among
residents and between residents and elected representatives encourages
the participatory nature of municipal governments. In addition
to the traditional venues for debate and discussion, the Internet
should increasingly become an important component of grass-roots
democracy and deliberation at the municipal level. However, failure
to ensure universal access to the Internet prevents it from achieving
the same level of deliberation and participation traditional public
forums such as council meetings have enjoyed.
Many lack the ability or resources to access the Internet and
thus are excluded from any discussions that occur on it. There
are those who do and those who don't have access to the Internet.
Furthermore, a majority of Internet users are males between eighteen
and thirty.4 If local governments move to improve participation
and deliberation through the Internet, some citizens would be
disenfranchised. Important decisions might be made based on an
inaccurate reflection of public opinion. Given that the goal of
utilizing the Internet is to improve access to municipal government,
it is obvious that this is not the intent. As Gordon Ross notes,
excluding persons from debate or vote contradicts the notion of
"one person, one vote"--the very essence of democracy.5
To be sure, some municipal governments have taken steps to address
the issue of access for the purposes of broadcasting and bilateral
communications. They have established public access terminals
in libraries and community centres for those who do not own the
equipment necessary to access the Internet. The municipal site
administrators with whom I conversed consciously recognized that
accessibility was a major issue. However, the provision of a small
number of public access terminals does not adequately address
the "have nots" and, as important, the "do nots."
As long as a certain segment of the population has an advantage
in the processing of information, the use of the Internet to enhance
democracy at the local level will be flawed.
If accessibility and demography were not issues, use of the Internet
could substantially improve the dissemination of information,
discussion and decision making both online and off. Keay Davidson
suggests that the use of email or chat lines actually improves
the quality and equality of online democracy because people are
less inhibited and less influenced by various aspects of physical
appearance such as race or gender. Furthermore, any personal characteristics
that might make a person a dominant public speaker are lost in
the electronic media.6
Peggy Sun offers another interesting perspective. In her essay
on social capital and the Internet, Sun notes that
given the opportunity to access government information and contact
public officials, people have generally gravitated towards electronic
mail and discussion bulletin boards as opposed to staff-generated
information pages. She suggests that these users may be "trying
to build trust and develop common values and ideas of the public
interest through informal, non-political associations."7
If this is so, broadcasting and bilateral communication will likely
be less utilized if the public are given the opportunity to participate
in multi-lateral communication through municipal government Web
sites. Furthermore, developing common values is an integral part
of building democratic values.
Should limited public access to the Internet discourage municipalities
from using the Internet to engage the public in meaningful debate
about policy problems? It is my opinion that municipal governments
should encourage public participation in any way possible. However,
utilization of the Internet must be done cognizant of the fact
that the views extracted from it are not necessarily representative
of the true community and should be judged accordingly. At this
point in time, the major value of the Internet is that it is an
additional method of disseminating information for use in the
traditional public forum.
Why Haven't Municipalities Moved To Multi-Directional Communications?
I would suggest that there might be a variety of reasons why municipal
governments have not provided for multi-directional communications.
First, the cost of managing such a system might be beyond the
resources of municipal governments. Establishing, monitoring,
and processing newsgroups and other electronic discussion forums
is very time-consuming. Given the diversity of operations managed
by a municipality, there might be numerous discussion groups.
Another possibility is that municipal administrators and politicians
are reluctant to allow direct public involvement in policy development
and the day-to-day operations of the organization. In this instance,
both politicians and administrators would argue that since they
are the ones who will be held responsible for policy and operations,
they should have the final say. If you accept that citizens elect
politicians to govern for them and that they will direct the administration,
there is some credence to this argument. However, if one believes
what most municipalities profess to believe, then greater resident
participation in municipal government is important to enhance
democracy. I would still maintain that online deliberation and
discussion on policy issues, if representative of the population,
would be a positive development.
A third reason why municipal governments have not progressed to
multi-directional discussion on the Internet is that municipal
governments, relatively inexperienced users of the Internet, are
not quite ready to utilize such discussion forums. In my opinion,
this might be the case in some municipalities but is a relatively
poor excuse for others.
A final reason might be that municipal administrators recognize
that Internet users are not representative of the population,
and thus have refrained from utilizing multi-directional discussion
to form public opinion. This is likely one of the most important
factors. It is well known that the Internet is predominantly used
by men. Thus, to avoid bias or the perception of bias, municipalities
may have shied away from multi-directional usage until such time
that the Internet is equally used by all groups.
What Impact Will The Internet Have On The Interaction Between
Municipalities And Their Constituents?
The demographics of Internet use, like many other things, are
changing daily. I would suspect that soon most people will be
online in some fashion. What overall impact will more pervasive
use of the Internet have on the interaction between municipalities
and their residents?
First, I believe that residents will be better informed. Regardless
of whether it is administratively or politically driven, residents
will get detailed information about issues of concern to them
much more quickly than previously possible. Furthermore, it will
"open" municipal governments that have perhaps grown
beyond the scale appropriate for "local" government.
Finally, one of the main motivators for municipalities to go online
was the possible increase in public participation at the local
level that might be realized. I would suggest that it will take
time for these increases to appear.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine how municipalities are
using the Internet to "open" local government. Traditionally,
local government has, for the most part, been more open than other
levels of government. Furthermore, increases in the size of local
government have also necessitated re-evaluation of the ways in
which municipalities provide information to the public. The opportunity
to disseminate large volumes of information and to increase public
access and public participation have been the forces driving municipalities
to establish a presence on the Internet.
Municipal Web sites share some common characteristics, including
the provision of information on elected officials, government
departments, community associations and economic development information.
All of the sites I examined, however, also had in common the failure
to utilize the Internet to improve public participation and deliberation
in the municipal system via the Internet. However, it is clear
that the Internet has and will continue to have an important function
in the relationship between residents and their municipal government.
The public now has greater access to public documents, policy
statements, and meeting information and can utilize this in the
traditional ways. As more and more people move online, the idea
of public discussion and deliberation via newsgroups and chat
lines will become more acceptable. However, the fact that Internet
users are not representative of the general population will keep
municipalities away from utilization of this feature in the near
future.
Bent, Stephen. "The Use Of The Internet By Municipal Governments: Great Expectations?," Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada 3, no.
3 (1996-7). [http://www.usask.ca/library/gic/v3n3/bent/bent.html]
The author wishes to extend special thanks to Saul Schwartz for his
guidance and encouragement.
[3] Monica Gattinger, "Local Governments Online. How Are
They Doing and What Does It Mean?" in Public Engagement:
Lessons From Local Government, Ed. Susan D. Phillips and Katherine
Graham (Toronto: IPAC, forthcoming).
[4] Keay Davidson, "Liberté, Egalité,
Interneté" in The New Scientist (May 27, 1995), 42.
[5] Gordon Ross, "Government on the Net: Revolutionizing
Democracy?" in Critical Mass [http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/~cm/issue5/whyweb.html].
[6] Davidson, 27.
[7] Peggy Sun, "Building social capital: A prerequisite
underlying credible calls for universal access and electronic
democracy" [http://www.carleton.ca/~psun/assn2.html].
|